Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is Neil J. Wilkof, Annsley Merelle Ward, Nicola Searle, Eleonora Rosati, and Merpel, with contributions from Mark Schweizer. Read, post comments and participate! E-mail the Kats here

The team is joined by Guest Kats Rosie Burbidge, Stephen Jones, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy, and by InternKats Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo, Hayleigh Bosher, Tian Lu and Cecilia Sbrolli.

Tuesday, 17 September 2013

The IP Kat pauses on the fieldto ponder offensive sports team trademarks and logos.

The IP Kat tends not to comment on sports programs or
traditions, especially when it comes to the curious traditions found in American sports.But the IP Kat does sometimes make an
exception, and has decided to do so today to comment on a growing issue for
several American sports teams, most notably the Washington Redskins football
team. [Merpel notes that the Redskins play American football, not footie.]The issue, inspired by this BBC article:What should a team do when its brand is considered offensive?﻿﻿﻿﻿Traditionally, sports teams in the US are named after
frightening wild animals or other similarly intimidating mascot.[Please don’t ask this Kat to explain the
selection of her alma mater, New York University, of the name “The FightingViolets” for its sports teams.Despite the team name, the mascot is now
a Bobcat.]For better or worse, a
significant part of American history includes the acquisition of land (in some
cases peacefully and in many others through battles) from Native American
tribes.American settlers, in their
early accounts of interactions with Native American populations, depicted the
Native Americans as violent, “red-skinned” warriors.

Unfortunately, that image, now recognized as inaccurate and
insensitive, pervaded American culture.It also impacted naming conventions for local sports teams.The Washington Redskins, an National FootballLeague (NFL) team, and the Atlanta Braves, a Major League Baseball team, are
just two examples in major league sports.There are also countless grade schools whose sports teams are named the
“Chiefs” and whose mascots are Native American chiefs in full, feathered
headdresses.The NFL team based in
Kansas City, Kansas is called the Kansas City Chiefs – its logo is an arrowhead
and the team plays its home games at Arrowhead Stadium.

﻿

The current logo of theWashington Redskins - soon to be a collector's item?

Though these names have been used for many years, US culture
and consciousness has changed over time.The public recognizes the offensiveness of the Native American
references in sports, especially in connection with the term “Redskins,” which
was used (by varying accounts) as a reference to the skin color of Native
Americans or, worse, as a reference to a hideous practice by western settlers
of skinning the skulls of captured Native American tribesmen.As a result, the owner of the Washington
Redskins has been pressured for years to change the team’s name to something
less offensive.But with established
trade marks and a highly recognized franchise, the team owner, Dan Snyder, has
been reticent to rebrand.In fact, he proclaimed, “We’ll never
change the name.It’s that simple.NEVER – you can use caps.”On the other hand, the objections are now
reaching a crescendo and even die-hard fans of the Washington NFL team are
beginning to acknowledge that the team is likely to succumb to a name change in
the near future.According to the BBC,
several journalists have ceased referring to the team as the Washington
Redskins.Instead, they omit the
Redskins name and just reference the team by location.

This is a prime example of how shifting cultural norms can
affect trade mark law.A term or name
that was not previously considered sufficiently offensive has become offensive
to a large enough portion of the public to make the name potentially
unregistrable.The Lanham Act, which codifies US trade mark law, sets forth
the various reasons
why a mark will not be accepted for trade mark protection,
including a mark which "consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or
scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with
persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring
them into contempt, or disrepute."This Kat
wonders whether the Washington football team could successfully register a trade
mark for “Redskins” today, or if the USPTO would refuse the registration on the
grounds that the mark consists of immoral or scandalous matter, or that it
brings a group of persons into disrepute.

﻿﻿

Speaking of dodgy nicknames...The Brooklyn Dodgers were nicknamed "The Bums".

Does
the name really matter anyway?The team
owner might rightfully be worried about rebranding.Most companies must invest large sums of
money to rebrand successfully and to ensure that its loyal consumers understand
that the new brand is just a new name and not a change in origin, quality or
consistency.However, when it comes to
sports teams, these considerations are generally irrelevant.A fan may have an emotional attachment to the
team name and logo, which may be emblazoned on his favorite shirt that he has
worn to watch every game for the past decade.But despite the emotional attachment, fans are more loyal to a team for
its location.This Kat’s grandfather
grew up watching the local New York baseball team then known as the Brooklyn Dodgers.When the Dodgers moved to Los
Angeles, California, he shifted his team loyalty to the New York Yankees so
that he could support a hometown team.I
don’t know any New Yorker who is an LA Dodgers fan solely because of the fact
that the team historically played in NY.It seems unlikely that a Washington Redskins fan would suddenly not support
the team merely because Mr Snyder changed the team’s name from the Redskins to
something considered less offensive.A
Washington fan will always be a Washington fan, especially if he continues to
live in the state of Washington, District of Columbia.[This
Kat knows European footie fans understand this deep-seated loyalty.][Update: A slip of the keyboard! The Washington Redskins are located in Washington, DC, not the state of Washington. Is it obvious this Kat is not a football fan?]

Notwithstanding
Mr Snyder’s proclamation, this Kat suspects that Mr Snyder’s biggest concern is
the financial health of the organization.If revenues from the sale of licensed team merchandise decline as fans
opt not to wear apparel featuring logos they find offensive, Mr Snyder may finally
have a strong incentive towards changing the name.

Are
there any examples outside the US of brands whose names or logos have become
offensive as cultural norms shifted?

18 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Your post shows a number of errors in logic.

The purported ban on Redskins paraphernalia was attempted and failed miserably. Point in fact is that only a very small minority [ouch, pardon the pun] find the name offensive. Most everybody else simply do not associate the name with any type of slur or denigration.

Second, the team can easily maintain the symbol regardless of FEDERAL trademark protection. Sure, they may want to add something and create a hybrid log wherein the new item has FEDERAL trademark protection, but the rule (if enforced) would only remove FEDERAL trademark protection and would not ban the use.

To any actual (American) football fan, this whole thing is nonsense and the word of advice to the whiners is to NOT have such thin skin - no matter what color it may be.

Not sure whether it is decisive whether a football fan finds it offensive or not. The visually prominent paraphernalia is worn by young children and other immature people, in families in which the child might well be the only such fan.

Anybody here from a country with a native population: Australia say, or New Zealand. The Maori have a reputation as warriors that is celebrated even today. But how about the Aborigine? How many Aborigine Rugby Teams are there?

Seems to me these Trademarks in the USA are not derogatory or denigrating. On the contrary. They are borrowing from legends of native American valour rather than defeat. So the extent to which native Americans could be offended strikes mwe as limited.

I suppose some might be offended that not only does the paleface steal all the land but adds insult to injury by expropriating for himself the paraphernalia of the native warrior chief. What if I, a couch potato obese sports fan, go out in public wearing, as opposed to the Chief's head-dress of feathers, the medals of the hero of the war in Korea (or Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq)? How many folks would that offend?

Thank you all for your comments! It is clear that this issue is one about which there are high passions.

It's true that the team may never legally have to change its name. But at some point, its Public Relations department should step in and ask the team owner (if it hasn't already):-Do you want your players to walk through protests at every away game?-Do you want to lose the sale of even a few tickets or merchandise because of protests over the team name?

A sports team should unify its players and its fans. The only upset it causes should be on the field. This issue is generating enough controversy that many people (whether a majority or not), including fans, journalists and 10 members of the US Congress, have called for a name change. Shouldn't that lead at least to serious consideration? It's certainly a PR issue for the team, if not a legal issue.

No, I did not miss the point. In fact you missed the point that language and meaning should not be held hostage to a vocal minority. Where do you stop at what any (small) group considers to be a slur?

The fact of the matter is that the term itself does NOT mean a slur by those who use it.

As to "But at some point, its Public Relations department should step in and ask the team owner (if it hasn't already)" - I call BS.

Stop passing off your views as what "must be." This is the type of political correctness that masquerades as 'right' but is merely censorship of what 'someone' else thinks 'should be.'

You don't have to like it. That is fine. You don't have to buy the jerseys. That too is fine. But stop trying to force your view on others. As I said - a boycott of the goods has been tried and failed miserably. What does that tell you?

Anonymous 14:25I well remember the Robinson's Golly from my own childhood. I used to collect Robinson Gollies and at that time had no idea that they were supposed to be representations of black folk; the abbreviation "golly" was neutral enough, though it was short for "gollywog" -- the final syllable of which was used quite widely to describe non-Brits of various descriptions, and not specifically blacks.

The metamorphoses that have shaped the title and content of the once-popular children's book Little Black Sambo are also worth noting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Little_Black_Sambo

Small point, but I too remember reading Little Black Sambo as a small child, and remember the puzzling reference to butter being called ghee in India (the tigers turned into butter/ghee in the story). It was several decades later that I made the connection as many Indian recipes involve the use of clarified butter (ghee). This stuck in my mind far more than the name Sambo.

Sambo is racist by today's standards, perhaps, but I would rather that Indians decide this point, better than jumping to conclusions. Patronising might be a better description.

Some Brits regard Love Thy Neighbour as the worst kind of racist 1970s TV sitcom. One of the white characters frequently uses the term "Nig nog". Imbued with this collective sense of guilt, I was astonished 2years ago, while giving some legal training in Lagos, to hear a Nigerian lawyer lament that TV channels were no longer making good traditional sitcoms like - you guessed it - Love Thy Neighbour.

I think that you would be really interested in some recent research that I have come across about crowds and citizen science.​ ​In particular I feel you may find these two emerging pieces of research very relevant:

The Redskins debate seems to have parallels to the current debate being played out in the UK newspapers with regard to Tottenham F.C. and the chants of their supporters. My understanding, taken from Wikipedia is that the chant was taken up by the home supporters to show solidarity with a group of their supporters who were being abused by racist elements of the opponent's support. Now, the P.C. brigade are saying that the chants should be stopped, despite their apparent anti-racist context.

... especially when it comes to the curious traditions found in American sports.

What do you find more baffling? American Football or cricket?

Are there any examples outside the US of brands whose names or logos have become offensive as cultural norms shifted?

The French Banania belongs to the same league as your Aunt Jemima or Uncle Ben's.

It represents in my eyes a toxic accumulation of colonial memes. The smiling figure of the pidgin-speaking ("y'a bon Banania") African bumpkin is used to represent a mixture concocted from sugar, bananas, and cocoa, the quintessential colonial staples.

He is dressed in the uniform of a Tirailleur Sénégalais, a kind of (more) expendable cannon fodder harvested overseas and whose bowels were liberally spilled in the muddy trenches of the Great War for "Civilisation".

Trademarks were originally filed in 1912, including a figurative one in Germany that was maintained until recently. The soldier figure was invented in the patriotic atmosphere of 1915, and is still used today in an even more stereotyped fashion.

@Anonymous 12:51 - A PR department is specifically hired to field questions or complaints from the public. Regardless of whether Washington will ever change its name, I am sure that its PR department is trained and prepared to answer questions from the media and from the public about this topic. If its directive from the ownership is to defend the name, it will be prepared to do so in a polite and sympathic manner so as to diffuse as much animosity from dissenters as possible. PR departments are also trained to advise management if these types of controversies are becomming too strong a distraction from the operation of the business so that management could decide whether a change in course is warranted. It would be naive to think the Washington team hasn't undergone these internal discussions - but clearly their opinion remains that they will keep and defend the name, at least for the time being.

For a renowned stickler for accuracy Jeremy you should know it's Robertson's not Robinson's ... and I vividly remember as a child having an old 45 with a song about "Black Sambo" ... "Living in the jungle, that's me, underneath the spreading Banyon tree"!

IPKat Policies

This page summarises the IPKat policies on guest submissions and comments. If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation. To learn more about our guest submissions, comments and complaints policy and the procedure for lodging a complaint click here.

Has the Kat got your tongue?

Just click the magic box below and get this page translated into a bewildering selection of languages!